Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 20:44 UTC, submitted by Moochman
Permalink for comment 312835
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
Stick to the point.
Repeating and regurgitating Sun's own benchmarks, verbatim, counts for very little.
Are you just daft? HP and Sun both submitted their respective results to Spec. It doesn't get any more objective than that.
Your ignorance is even more telling. Cpus consume more energy at higher clock rates and dissipate more heat.
Your article was ridiculously out dated. SpecWeb is an industry standard benchmark. Prove your point with some real data not FUD.
Again, specweb is a real benchmark for web services ( the target market for the Sun box) and and single Sun chip out classes 4 of the latest Xeons.
Right on cue. Speaking of arbitrary units of measure...... You can't just tot things up on Sun's power calculator on their web site and expect that to answer a real world question.
More vile ignorance. Real world datacenters are constantly looking for ways to reduce their cooling and electricity bills. Gee I wonder why virtualization and server consolidation is big in the REAL WORLD.
I forgot that you don't live in the real world.
It doesn't. It would help if you actually looked at what the results tell you, and it would also help if you actually knew what the power consumption cost of a Xeon was. You balance that versus the raw performance, and you could halve the CPUs to two and halve the performance of a Xeon to cut power right back (a more realistic test) and its raw performance would still be better.
It doesn't? Say what? that doesn't make any sense.
The Xeons X7350 are 130W parts. HP's and Intel's websites say so. Can't you read and comprehend?
Even if you reduce the cpus to 2 you get 260Ws for the cpus alone vs 95 watts or at max 123Watts for the SPARC cpu box. The SPARC box is still lower power but can now deliver twice the performance of the HP Xeon Box.
Eh? The Sun box and the HP box cost almost the same and the Sun box uses significantly less power.
Oh you are still stuck like a broken record on that article you posted.
I think HP and its engineers tuning the hell out of their setup and submitting a result that show cases the best performance number on SpecWeb2005 and Sun doing the same counts for a lot more than a blog post from 2 years ago.
HP and Sun have the only two results in the 40K range on SPecWeb2005. So we are comparing the very best submissions from the respective companies.
You can't possibly be implying that HP doesn't know how to tune and get the best performance out of their systems, could you? Especially when they are trying to post the highest number, or so they thought, for their own customers to see and the sales staff to use as material sell those systems.
You certainly can't be that daft , can you?
Got proof? The cool threads server's perfomance throws a wrench soundly in that statement.
I'd laugh if that wasn't so sad. Why do you think they left in the first place? I'm sure Sun gave them a nice deal and some new toys to play with ;-).
Please don't show your stupidity any more than you have to.
More nonsensical gibberish. Read and comprehend first. Then do some research and come up with some real data to the topic at hand. Some up to date data would be very useful.
I wonder why the coolthreads systems are doubling in revenue YoY.
Edited 2008-05-05 02:10 UTC